As a non-white British person i have no problem with native meaning certain ethnicities - after all, no one would call a white American a native American.

What is very, very troubling is his idea that London of all places should be an ethnically white city. London has been multi-ethnic since the 70s or 80s, if not earlier. It is very much a world city.

The other thing is that he is Danish and seems to be projecting his feelings about Denmark onto Britain. He does not really understand how British people feel. The organiser of the march he praises is such as toxic figure for his blatant bigotry that the Reform Party (the most right wing party that has seats in Parliament) turned down a $100m donation from Elon Musk rather than allow him to join the party. e ethnic makeup does not bother any white Londoners I know (I grew up in London, so I do know a lot of people there). In fact, the only person I can recall complaining about it in real life was also foreign European.

The march was not actually that big. There have been many larger protests in London. From protests against the Iraq war (about five times the turnout), against the ban on huntings with dogs (nearly three times as many) and both pro and anti Brexit. It was by far the largest the far right has been able to organise, but they only managed that by labelling it a march for free speech (I do think there is a genuine problem with free speech in the UK, and I wish we had the sort of protections the US does).

▲ triceratops 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> As a non-white British person i have no problem with native meaning certain ethnicities

It's not actually ethnicity he's talking about, it's skin color. Ethnicity is cultural.

Why exactly aren't people of any skin color who live in the UK, speak English, and believe in the full package of "Western values" (equality, freedom of speech, religion, rule of law etc) and "English behaviors" (queueing, tea, whatever) considered English? How many generations is enough to become "native"?

He thinks calling his views "far-right" and "racist" and "nazi"-adjacent is going too far because the Social Democrat Prime Minister of his country said the same thing (I actually don't know because the linked interview with Mette Fredriksen was in Danish). But that's how this stuff always begins. It's extremely worrisome.

▲

mytailorisrich 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

"Native Brit" as used by DHH does refer to an ethnicity. He uses data for London from the 2021 official census: 54% "white" but only 37% "white British" (and arguably "native Brits" might be an even smaller group).

There is also a difference between being "multi-ethnic" and being minority "native".

▲

graemep 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> It's not actually ethnicity he's talking about, it's skin color. Ethnicity is cultural.

DHH says people are not "native Brits". The literal meaning of that is ethnicity, not skin colour. Of course DHH might be using this as code for white, but it is not the literal meaning, and (as another comment points out) the statistic he quotes is for the total of the ethnic groups that are considered white British - it excludes white people who are not ethnically British.

If he is, then he is, again, projecting his own views onto a culture he does not really understand. Some people from European countries (e.g. an Albanian illegal immigrant) are far more likely to face hostility than some non-white people (e.g. a professional affluent South Asian with a British accent). Someone recently commented that a racist who they know well would not mind my (brown) family because we "sound posh" so would prefer us to people like Poles.

> How many generations is enough to become "native"?

Define native! Are white Americans native in the US, and are Afrikaners native to South Africa, etc.? It is an ambiguous word.

The problem disappears if you drop the adjective native and just say "British".

> Why exactly aren't people of any skin color who live in the UK, speak English, and believe in the full package of "Western values" (equality, freedom of speech, religion, rule of law etc) and "English behaviors" (queueing, tea, whatever)

I think the problem with that definition is that lots of people how have never even lived in the UK believe in those values and drink tea and even queue. I know plenty. Also, English or British? British is a nationality, English is arguable an ethnicity (as are Scottish and Welsh).

> It's extremely worrisome.

I agree there, and it is very disappointing to see DHH spouting this.

	▲	triceratops 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> Define native! That's why I put "native" in scare quotes. > I think the problem with that definition is that lots of people how have never even lived in the UK That's why I wrote "live in the UK" first.

▲ defrost 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> London has been multi-ethnic since the 70s or 80s, if not earlier. It is very much a world city.

Leaving aside the Bronze Age structures around the London area and river,

  The archaeologist Leslie Wallace notes, "Because no LPRIA [Late pre-Roman Iron Age] settlements or significant domestic refuse have been found in London, despite extensive archaeological excavation, arguments for a purely Roman foundation of London are now common and uncontroversial."

The city of London itself grew from a multi-ethnic kernel:

  Londinium was established as a civilian town by the Romans about four years after the invasion of AD 43. London, like Rome, was founded on the point of the river where it was narrow enough to bridge and the strategic location of the city provided easy access to much of Europe.

It's been multi-ethnic for at least two thousand years.

above quotes sourced from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_London